Classic Rant #1,160 (March 10, 2014): Vital Gore

My family and I had a pretty standard weekend, which means we went food shopping and didn't do much else ... sort of.

My son and I did get new suits for an upcoming wedding that we will be going to, but we did do something else that we hadn't done in months.

We went to the movies.

The movies used to be a common occurrence with my family. We used to go all the time, probably at least twice a month.

However, as I am sure you know from your own personal experiences, the movies have become a bit of a financial problem in recent times.

The prices per ticket are outrageous, and let's be honest about it, most of today's films are pure garbage anyway.

If you must see a movie, you can wait for it to come on one of the movie channels or "on demand," as they say.

So we ventured off yesterday to the movies for the first time in I would say maybe six months to see "300: Rise of An Empire," the second installment of the "300" series of movies.

The first one came out seven years ago, and we saw that one too, and enjoyed it for all of its glorified violence, so we figured we might like this one too.

And we did.

The story isn't really that important. In a film like this, you have to rate it by the gore factor, and this movie earned, on a scale of one to 10, a gore factor of about 25.

I have never seen so many heads chopped off in one film, so much blood spattered all over the place, so many swords go into bodies--and come out the other side--as in this film.

And all in 3D.

And this is not an all-male macho gorefest. Eva Green steals the entire show as the main protagonist, and she goes out, and chops off some heads too.

And then she gets harpooned herself.

She also has the most unerotic love scene I have ever seen in my life, where she tries to upstage her lover by a series of heaves that wouldn't turn on a strung-out nymphomaniac.

So it was blood, blood, and more blood everywhere, which we pretty much expected, anyway.

It was violence for violence's sake, and it worked very well.

What didn't work as well was the dent it made in my wallet.

And this is why we don't go to the movies more than a handful of times a year.

It cost me a total of $42--$14 a head--to see this film in 3D.

Sure, we could have saved a bundle by simply seeing it in 2D, but a film like this begs to be seen in 3D, with all the chopping and blood spattering all over the place.

So we splurged.

I simply said that we hadn't been to the theater in six months, we should see the movie in 3D.

Maybe that is stupid thinking, but that is how I justified paying such a price for the film.

And then they want the 3D glasses back yet!

There are a few more movies I am sure we will see this year, but even though we enjoyed the movie, I can't justify the expenditure of such a price to see a movie each and every time we decide to go.

And that is really why we don't go more often.

Heck, I don't know how young kids go out on dates in this day and age.

It is just so expensive. A first date has to cost the payer about $50.

When I was a kid, I never had that type of money in my wallet.

And as an adult, I guess I don't have that either.

Not after yesterday's movie, anyway.